U.S. Military's Carbon Emissions Eclipse Swedes', Yet Budget Reduction May Fuel Substantial Environmental Benefits
In a groundbreaking study published in PLOS Climate, researchers have highlighted the potential environmental benefits of reducing U.S. military spending. The study reveals that scaling back the military's air operations, particularly long-distance flights and combat exercises, could lead to substantial energy savings and a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the findings, if the United States were to reduce its Department of Defense (DoD) military expenditures by approximately 6.6% annually from 2023 to 2032, it could achieve annual energy savings of approximately 272 trillion British Thermal Units (BTUs) by 2032. This energy savings is roughly equivalent to the total energy consumption of the entire country of Slovenia or the U.S. state of Delaware.
The study shows strong correlations between military budgets and energy consumption, particularly from jet fuel, which has accounted for more than half of all U.S. military energy use over the last fifty years. The U.S. military is the single largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, and if it were a nation, it would rank 47th globally in CO2 emissions, ahead of Sweden and Portugal.
Over the last 45 years, the Pentagon has generated nearly 4,000 million metric tons of CO2, roughly equal to the entire emissions of India in a single year. Even more modest annual cuts of just 2.3% would still save enough energy to match the usage of smaller U.S. states or countries, such as Vermont or Estonia.
The study's authors caution that their findings may not generalize beyond the U.S., but the implications for climate change mitigation efforts are significant. Reductions in military spending are associated with reductions in energy consumption from military facilities, vehicles, equipment, and jet fuel in particular.
The potential environmental benefits of military spending cuts are underscored by the fact that the U.S. Department of State, during the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in the 1990s, secured an exemption for military operations from international climate agreements. Critics argue that the Pentagon's dismissal of climate programs is shortsighted, as climate change poses threats to national security, such as hurricanes destroying key bases and climate-fueled droughts and flooding destabilizing regions.
Neta Crawford, co-founder of the Costs of War project at Brown University, warns that Trump's proposed policies could lead to a rise in U.S. military emissions, causing a ripple effect in emissions of allies, former allies, and adversaries. Large annual increases in military spending, like the 13% hike proposed by President Trump's administration, could add the equivalent of El Salvador's or Washington, D.C.'s total annual energy use to the military's footprint.
In conclusion, the study suggests that the most impactful way to reduce the social and environmental costs and harms of the military is to scale it back. The potential energy savings and climate change mitigation benefits of military spending cuts are substantial and warrant further consideration in policy discussions.
- The study reveals that reducing U.S. military spending by 6.6% annually could lead to annual energy savings equivalent to the total energy consumption of Slovenia or Delaware by 2032.
- The climate change implications of these reductions are significant, as military budgets are strongly correlated with energy consumption, particularly from jet fuel.
- The U.S. military is the single largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases, with nearly 4,000 million metric tons of CO2 generated over the last 45 years, roughly equal to India's annual emissions.
- Even modest annual cuts of 2.3% could save enough energy to match the usage of smaller states like Vermont or Estonia.
- The study's authors highlight that identifying the environmental benefits of military spending cuts is crucial for climate change mitigation efforts, particularly considering the Pentagon's past dismissal of climate programs.
- Critics argue that increasing military spending, like Trump's proposed hike of 13%, could negatively impact the environment by increasing greenhouse gas emissions, potentially adding the equivalent of El Salvador or Washington D.C.'s annual energy use to the military's footprint.
- Investigating renewable energy solutions and decreasing dependence on fossil fuels in the military sector could be a practical step towards realizing the potential environmental benefits of military spending cuts and adopting a sustainable approach to military operations, benefiting the health of our planet and the future of our Earth's climate.
